Are problems of EFL reading language problems or reading problems?

One-Day Workshop on the Teaching of Reading – LTC Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta, 24 August 2002 involving consideration of a number of aspects. One of these aspects is the teachers‟ understanding of issues related to the nature of reading itself. This understanding is paramount, as it will determine the kind of reading course they design and teaching techniques they develop. These issues will be highlighted in following sections. 2. Are problems of EFL reading language problems or reading problems? While current reading specialists have seen considerable evidence to conclude that there are similarities and differences between first and second or foreign language reading processes Barnett, 1989; Grabe, 1991, it is necessary to review a seminal work of which the basic idea remains unchallenged to the present. This is not meant to present a renewed argument about the status of the problem of reading in the second or foreign language, but rather to relate issues supporting the proposition that EFL readers face more difficult tasks than native readers in reading texts written in English. Since the publication of Alderson and Urquhart‟s 1984 Reading in a Foreign Language, in which Alderson examines whether reading problems in a foreign language are reading problems or language problems, there has not been any author denying or challenging Alderson‟s stance that reading problems in a foreign language are both reading problems problems related to reading skills and language problems problems related to language proficiency. Coady 1979 and Jolly 1978 suggest that the source of success in foreign language reading is reading ability in the first language. Poor first-language readers will read poorly in the foreign language and good first-language readers will read well in the foreign language. In contrast, Yorio 1971 considers poor reading in a foreign language a consequence of inadequate knowledge of the target language. While research evidence from studies conducted by McNamara 1970, Hatch 1973, Barik and Swain 1975, Cowan and Sarmad 1976, and Clarke 1979 reveals that foreign language reading is both a language problem and a reading problem, Alderson 1984:24 suggests, with firmer evidence, that it One-Day Workshop on the Teaching of Reading – LTC Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta, 24 August 2002 is more a language problem for those with low levels of foreign language competence, than a reading problem. Alderson 1984:26-27 further suggests that for good first-language readers learning to read in a foreign language, once they reach the threshold level, they might be expected to take off. However, the nature of the threshold, if it exists, remains a question to be answered Alderson, 1984:27. In response to Alderson‟s 1984 question, Laufer and Sim 1985 conducted a study to measure and describe the threshold level required to read English for academic purposes. Using the Cambridge First Certificate of English reading comprehension section as well as their own reading strategies exam with a sample of 84 Israeli university students, they determined that the threshold necessary to read English for Academic Purposes successfully corresponds to a 65-70 score on that particular test. Students who achieved a 65-70 score on the test were able to read texts of an academic genre and answer questions on selected reading strategies such as distinguishing between main and peripheral ideas, distinguishing between explicit and implicit material, recognising author‟s intent, lexical guessing, and so forth Laufer Sim, 1985:409. However, little information is given abou t participants‟ first language reading ability, and documents such as texts and questions used are not available. Therefore, replication and comparison are difficult, and a 65-70 score on the test is also difficult to relate to other measures. Respondin g to the same question, Carrell‟s 1991 study, with L1 EnglishL2 Spanish readers and L1 SpanishL2 English readers, concludes that L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency are statistically significant predictors of L2 reading ability. Consistent with Alderson‟s 1984 stance, Carrell 1991 concludes that L2 reading comprehension is more a language problem at low levels of L2 proficiency. A later study was conducted by Bossers 1992 with participants reading in Dutch as a second language and in Turkish as a first language. Consistent with one of One-Day Workshop on the Teaching of Reading – LTC Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta, 24 August 2002 Carrell‟s 1991 findings, Bossers 1992 concluded that both predictor variables reading ability and second language proficiency are statistically significant contributors to L2 reading comprehension and that L2 knowledge is generally the more important factor. Bossers 1992:185 concluded that “L2 knowledge is strongly related to L2 reading comprehension even in advanced learners” and that correlations between L1 and L2 reading comprehension in readers with low and high levels of L2 proficiency did not differ significantly. Bossers 1992:186 found that although his informants were competent readers in their native language English, they seemed to be “bound to print” while reading the second language. Even advanced L2 learners were unable to perform reading tasks as easily or as quickly in their L2 as in their L1. Therefore, Bossers 1992 argues neither for nor against the existence of a language threshold in second or foreign language learning. A more recent study was carried out by Taillefer 1996 with 53 French university students reading preprofessional English texts with various reading tasks. Taillefer‟s 1996 study focuses on the interaction of L1 reading ability and L2 proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Taillefer concluded that, although both predictor variables L1 reading ability and L2 proficiency showed statistically significant relationships to L2 reading comprehension, their relative importance appeared to depend on the readin g task as well as on the readers‟ L2 proficiency. The more difficult the task, the more important L2 knowledge became, but it could not be affirmed that L1 reading ability gains importance as L2 proficiency increases toward threshold level. However, like t he previous studies, Taillefer‟s 1996 study has not reached the point of providing the precise description of the nature of the threshold itself. While the nature of the „threshold‟, if it exists, remains unclear, Alderson 1984:27 points out that to differing degrees, both good and poor first language readers learning to read in a foreign language need tuition in reading skills and strategies. Poor first-language readers learning to read in a foreign language will undoubtedly need considerable tuition in these. Grabe 1996:45 suggests that One-Day Workshop on the Teaching of Reading – LTC Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta, 24 August 2002 teaching L2 students to use reading strategies is now recognised as important as a means of helping them to develop into strategic readers. In regard to the present discussion, Alderson‟s 1984 position that reading problems in a foreign language are both problems related to language proficiency and those related to reading skills and strategies, hence, reading processes, is supported by Bouvet 2000:67 who claims that the question of reading proficiency or lack of it cannot be ignored in describing readers‟ reading comprehension strategies. This indicates the need for further studies to discover the differences between reading in the first and second or foreign languages. The following section addresses some of these differences. Differences between L1 reading and L2 reading Grabe 1991:386 and Hudson 1998:44 suggest that reading in a foreign language is influenced by factors related to foreign language FL acquisition and training differences, which may not usually be found in the first language L1 reading. For example, Grabe 1991:386 suggests that first language learners have already learned a relatively large number of words and have a good intuitive sense of the grammar of the language before they formally begin reading instruction in schools. Grabe 1995:43 recognises that students in English L1 academic contexts learn an average of 40,000 words by the end of secondary school, and learn approximately 3000 new words each year in school. In contrast, foreign language learners usually have only a limited store of oral language vocabulary and have a lack of sense of grammar of the language Grabe, 1991:386. For example, on average first year Indonesian university students had some knowledge of 1226 English words, a figure that falls far short of the 3000-5000 word range that is widely considered the threshold level for independent reading of unsimplified texts Nurweni Read, 1999:161. Supporting Grabe‟s 1991 suggestion, Koda 1994 identifies three fundamental distinctions between L1 and L2 reading. First, L2 readers have prior reading One-Day Workshop on the Teaching of Reading – LTC Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta, 24 August 2002 experience in their L1. Koda 1994:4 infers from L1 and L2 research studies that linguistic orientation generated by L1 linguistic features not only influences L2 acquisition but also constrains the cognitive procedures used in L2 processing. Second, L2 reading is cross-linguistic in nature, involving at least two languages. Koda 1994:7 suggests that the development of L2 processing strategies involves a complicated interplay among universal principles, the L1 system, and the particular L2 features. Third, as a consequence of limited linguistic knowledge, L2 readers use compensatory devices to solve comprehension problems. In L1 reading, children have usually mastered the basic language structure through oral interaction before instruction begins. Moreover, they are continuously exposed to written symbols in their cultural environment e.g. food packages, commercial logos and billboards, which enable them to formulate visual images of words and establish strong associations between the oral and written forms of the language. This is rarely the case with L2 learners, and almost never the case with foreign language learners. For example, in the context of teaching English as a foreign language TEFL in Asia, English is learnt in the classroom where the main source of the language is a prescribed textbook taught by a teacher. In most such cases the language has no existence outside the classroom; it often ceases to exist as soon as the textbook is closed Tickoo, 1995:261. Of course, this condition has changed gradually in the context of TEFLIN. Still in the context of TEFL in Asia, Tickoo 1995:261 observes that the English language is taughtlearnt in an institutional context, which has to remain responsive to the established beliefs, expectations and attitudes about good teaching, valued knowledge and preferred forms of classroom interaction. With particular emphasis on EFL reading, Tickoo‟s 1995:261 observation is in line with the contention that reading cannot be separated from social and cultural contexts Grabe, 1991; Hudson, 1998; Street, 1994; Wallace, 1988 and readers‟ beliefs Sugirin, 1997. Second or foreign language readers will undoubtedly bring into the text their own social and cultural values and beliefs which may be alien to the native readers of the target language. One-Day Workshop on the Teaching of Reading – LTC Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta, 24 August 2002 For example, Wallace 1988:2 notes that being a reader is likely to mean something different from one social group to another. A Pakistani Moslem boy will be expected to read aloud from the Koran, but he will not be expected to understand what he reads. A gloss is generally provided in Urdu, which in fact is not necessarily his first spoken language, which may be Punjabi. Being able to read aloud from the Koran is also expected of Indonesian Moslems. In this regard, reading aloud from the Koran is not merely for social purposes but part of religious services, as daily prayers are said in Arabic, the language of the Koran. Moslems are expected to be able to recite as well as understand the Koran. While understanding the Koran usually develops slowly through various modes of religious learning, reading it aloud starts in early childhood. The ability to read the Koran aloud is highly praised in Islam, and this can be seen from annual reading aloud contests, which are held locally, nationally and internationally. While no empirical evidence is available, it seems reasonable to assume that this reading aloud practice may, to some e xtent, have an impact on the Moslems‟ view of the nature of good reading. Grabe 1991 suggests that foreign language learners may have certain advantages. For example, since most academically oriented EFL learners are older than L1 learners, they have a better-developed conceptual sense of the world; they have considerably more factual knowledge about the world; and they can make elaborate logical inferences from the text. As a consequence, vocabulary becomes largely a matter of remembering a second label for a well-understood concept. Thus, transfer of concept or knowledge takes place from L1 to the FL. Older EFL students will tend to make more use of metacognitive strategies in their learning as well, making them more efficient learners. However, transfer effects from language processing differences can cause difficulties for FL students. On a very basic level, transfer effects caused by false cognates or near cognates can influence vocabulary recognition. Students‟ L1 syntactic knowledge can also cause interference. Word order variation, relative clause formation, complex noun phrase structures, and other complex structural differences between languages can mislead EFL readers, particularly at the beginning stages Grabe, One-Day Workshop on the Teaching of Reading – LTC Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta, 24 August 2002 1991:387. This is also support ed by Bouvet‟s 2000:77 research evidence that foreign language and second language students repeatedly claim that lack of vocabulary knowledge is a major problem in reading. 3. What constitutes effective reading?